Last June, Anita Sarkeesian set up a Kickstarter to fund a YouTube series about Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. Some lovely internet denizens responded by being bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling, including such impeccable behaviors as making rape threats, posting thousands of antisemitic and sexist comments on her YouTube videos, and flagging her videos as “terrorism” in an attempt to get them taken down.

Now she’s posted the second video in the series, which is the second episode about the Damsel in Distress trope (part one here). In a move that should shock no one, the video was temporarily pulled from YouTube yesterday because it was flagged as terrorism by aforementioned bastard-coated bastards.

In this installment we look at “dark and edgy” side of the trope in more modern games and how the plot device is often used in conjunction with graphic depictions of violence against women. Over the past decade we’ve seen developers try to spice up the old Damsel in Distress cliche by combining it with other tropes involving victimized women including the disposable woman, the mercy killing and the woman in the refrigerator. [Feminist Frequency via The Mary Sue]

The most disturbing part of this episode is seeing how many games include a woman being brutalized or killed in service of spurring a male protagonist’s character development or providing a revenge motive. It’s lazy writing, but also creepy when it keeps happening over and over.

The video has spoilers for 28 different games (listed here). They also recommend three indie games that explore a character’s mortality in a non-exploitative way: Dear Esther, To The Moon, and Passage.

i originally ignored this after all the whole bullshit “controversy” over the kickstarter. after watching this vid, its actually well done. its well produced and she makes some pretty damn valid points.

Fair play to her for putting out these videos, it’s definitely a subject that merits study and criticism.

That being said, part of me thinks that this is needlessly divisive. Can’t it just be about a critical view of violence in gaming against PEOPLE, be they male, female, black, white etc. instead of poking the hornet’s nest of online gobshites?

Anyway, I’m behind this, but against constantly building walls to segregate groups in gaming culture.

I think what’s really wrong w/this video is the shirt and earrings combo. The plaid shirt is hipster and the earrings are 70’s disco/porno. Both styles are horrible and combined scream fashion terrorist. Being a feminist doesn’t mean you can’t have style.

My only ish, from what I’ve seen so far, is her definition of women in refrigerators. There’s no soul nonsense, the women are gruesomely murdered just to fuel the story. They’re dismembered McGuffins of a sort.

That, and the general idea that video games are super evil misogyny factories, when they’re just another form of media that uses the same tired tropes. It doesn’t make her wrong, and I don’t think that’s even her specific intention, it’s just how it seems to be viewed.

She’s not saying humorous in a dismissive manner. She’s saying the scene is played for laughs specifically because it flips a pervasive trope on its head. As a corollary, if the trope was not pervasive, the scene would not be “so humorous.”

That was what I mean. That she claimed it was played for laughs.The scene was definitely not played for laughs. It was actually a very emotional part of the film and was framed as such. I don’t think the scene was made to be some sort of commentary on the trope either. It was made because it added an emotional element to the story and explained the General/Commander’s hatred for the aliens.

You should watch it Phrasing, it was actually pretty enjoyable. Had a lot more potential but it was still pretty good.
Duchess, I think you may have misinterpreted the scene and gone fishing for something that wasn’t there. What made you think that it was created to poke fun at the ‘trope’?

We’ve all played at least one game where the hulking super masculine protagonist/male fantasy goes from uber macho to super emo in .5 seconds because of a flashback of his spouse being gruesomely murdered, usually in front of him.

Ralph’s writers basically did the same thing, except that the Hero character in this case is a woman, and the victim was, for pretty much the first time ever, at least in reference to a videogame, the buff, action man juvenile male role model character.

I think if you can’t blame video games for spawning violence, then you can’t blame them for breeding misogyny. You have to think of the target demographic for these games, the majoriy who are male between the ages of 18-40, providing them with a revenge story is a perfectly acceptable way of plot progression, in fact its a very effective way of creating emotional links between the player and character. Not because it somehow glorifies violence against women (which it doesn’t). Think about it this way, what they are saying is the most painful way a villain can harm a protagonist bar death is by taking what he loves the most away from him (not something he owns like she emphasises “I will take something from you” automatically means object of worth in this case wife – bullshit) in the cases of a male centered game why can’t it be a women. And if you say, why does it have to be male centered, refer again to my point about target demographics. Also her point about the wreck it ralph plot line being humorous is exactly why people like her will never be satisfied. What on earth is humorous about a groom being eaten infront of his bride. She clearly is left distraught by this. Why not mention the hundreds of games that women aren’t damseled in? In the very same gears of war game that she mentions, you have to save and then mercy kill a fellow COG. In halo you have to perform mercy killings on fellow soldiers and in one case a commander before they turn into the flood. Both games have very strong female roles with options of picking your characters sex from the get go (Halo reach, past gears of war 2). This rant is a reaching a TL;DR stage so I will summarise:

-loads of video games have stong female roles
-saving a character is just a form of plot progression no marxist under tones of the lack of female worth involved
-target demographics mean more male characters will exist (eventhough loads of female ones do too)
– women being murdered doesn’t act as some lack of respect of worth, its the most effective way to break a man. The reason you are driven by this, is because you must avenge them, being female is not why they were killed.

You’re missing her point. You named two games that do not fit the mold. She mentioned TWENTY NINE that did. Just because there are a handful of media that do not “fit” the trope doesn’t mean the trope is not pervasive and common.

Also, your last comment demonstrates the entire point she is trying to make. A woman being murdered being the most effective way to break a man, is at its core, a paternalistic statement. She spends a good five minutes of the video breaking down this exact detail.

The “market share” argument is also demonstrably false. Women are becoming a larger part of the market. Women are not being excluded because they are not buying games, they are not buying games because they are being excluded. The masculine focus of major market games is not descriptive, its prescriptive.

Axissillian, I didn’t mention twenty nine games because I’m not making a 25 minute video and I thought a list so long would be superflous to the argument. Metroid Prime is another and so is the tomb raider franchise, Mass effect too. Go online and see for yourself.

How can a paternalistic statement not be correct, its in your bloody DNA pun intended to be protective of the ones you love. Genuinely millenia of evolution have led the human race to be protective of one another.

It is not false, whilst I agree the market share is growing, it is still in the vast minority of gamers. Anyway the point being that, women aren’t excluded because they don’t buy or don’t buy because they are excluded is not what I imagined you would have got out of it. Because as I said there are huge quantities of games with female lead roles. Could it just be that some people don’t want to play video games?

I think you are using Tomb Raider as an example of female empowerment in video gaming, you may not exactly have the most firm grasp of what female empowerment actually represents.

Also, human culture is more complicated than a simple collection of biological urges. Our behavior is not simply “coded in our DNA.” Biotruths are rarely, simply put, true.

If you want understand more of the ideological background that Sarkeesian is working from, I would recommend “The Second Sex” by Simone de Beauvoir and “Gender Trouble” by Judith Butler. They both explicitly cover a lot of the critiques and ideas that perhaps Sarkeesian glosses over as “assumed” in her videos. Not that I would necessarily ask her to give a refresher course of 20th century feminism for the youtube layman.

Firstly, if you don’t view Tomb Raider as an example of female empowerment then it may be you who doesn’t quite grasp what it is. If you are referring to her skimp attire, which I am assuming you are. Two things. A century ago it was women being dressed in two much clothing, now its men perving over women’s bodies cover it up for the sake of feminism. Gross exaggeration maybe, but there many male characters who wear skin tight suits and nothing is said (green lantern/spiderman/virtually every marvel male character. What about bulging male muscles in character?) because nothing should be said, the strive for aesthetically pleasing suits is not sexist.

I’ll think you will find that I did not say that Human culture is solely driven by biological urges, although I think you will find that in this case I am 100% right. It’s quite ignorant for you to think otherwise.

In reference to your reading recommendations, how about you think for yourself and explain the argument with your own beliefs rooted in these ideologies without referring me. If you will go read up on some post-modernist theory on how their is not meta-narrative to anything and how nothing has any concrete meaning. It will single handedly defeat your argument as well as mine lol. But I don’t agree with most a lot of it.

The issues with Lara Croft go well beyond her design. The design of Lara Croft AND the incredibly muscled superheroes both come from the same idea of a male gaze and the empowerment of the masculine ego fantasy. Its not the counter-point, its simply more evidence.

You also don’t understand Post-Modernism if that is your interpretation of the deconstruction of the signifier-signified relationship and the role of meta-narration in comprehension of reality.

I’ll think you will find, that whilst my interpretation of post-modernism isn’t fool proof, the stripping of an authors creative rights in a text’s meaning is exactly my point. Which is why I also don’t agree with a meta narrative that in short denies the existence of meta narratives.

Regarding the male gaze and empowerment of the masculine ego fantasy, how can something so subjective have a right or wrong form? An author has the right to portray his characters in the way that he wants. Especially since there are many varied portrayals of power, bravery and strength. But by saying that one way that such things are conveyed is wrong is contradictory is it not?

“Think about it this way, what they are saying is the most painful way a villain can harm a protagonist bar death is by taking what he loves the most away from him (not something he owns like she emphasises “I will take something from you” automatically means object of worth in this case wife – bullshit) in the cases of a male centered game why can’t it be a women.”

I know you’re engaged in a discussion, and this format isn’t friendly to jumping in, but I’m gonna do it anyway. My apologies for the likely ensuing mess.

I haven’t watched the video yet, so I can’t speak directly to her argument, but I have to imagine part of the issue is the objectifying of the woman. Not so much as a sexual object, but as a plot device. Someone killing the protagonist’s love in a video game is often just what you say it isn’t: someone taking something away from the player. The protagonist has an intimate connection, the player does not. In games that do not devote the appropriate time to character development for that woman, the only loss the player experiences is the feeling of being deprived of something that belonged to them, and that woman could have been replaced by any other with the label “wife” or “lover.” I don’t think that revenge stories inherently involve the objectification of women, but surely the argument can be made that lazy revenge stories very often do.

You are fundamentally ignorant of even the basics of criticism. You are attacking a position grounded in the last century of intellectual thought with little more than your own assumptions. You literally and visibly do not understand what terms mean, where they come from, and how they are used. You are arguing against a boogieman constructed entirely of your own profound ignorance. You do not understand enough of the issue to even understand what the argument is about. You are a child listening in as the adults have a conversation. If you want your opinions to have any value beyond the quickly ignored squeaks of the culturally irrelevant you need to make a sincere effort to understand even the most basic parts of the ideas you claim to critique.

Axissillian, In what seemed a pretty civil discussion you have for no reason just crossed the line. Whilst I have refrained from deconstructing you argument and calling you out on all your bullshit, hear it is, you claim that I am the child listening in on an adult conversation but have been the one to stick you fingers in your ears and ignore everything I have said. You so eloquently put it”you don’t understand” and don’t further the discussion with any valid points. You are arguing with such grand ambiguity, that its in fact impossible to ascertain what you are even arguing about. Please explain to me what I have understood incorrectly or which concepts I can’t grasp in my “profound ignorance”.
In short, because I don’t agree with this woman’s views on sexism, or even the last centuries intellectual thought (which has clearly only agreed with your entire argument, which is what again?) I am stubborn and ignorant, I assume you wouldn’t have been very fond of the Enlightenment either. Because my argument is categorically wrong.

I think judging whether or not the game has developed female damsels well or not through 2 second snippets is pointless. If you have played the games then you will see that the reason for the protagonists attachment to the character is often covered in great detail through the use of flashbacks and personal quests etc. Forming a sometime weird bond with this virtual reality. I agree sometimes the development is rather shitty, but I don’t believe that equates to sexism or in the negative portrayal of females I think its just shitty and lazy writing. But to automatically assume, which you don’t, that games have objectified women by creating damsels is wrong.

“Video games don’t cause violence” is a very bright, clear line because on one side, you have advocates insisting on a very clear cause-and-effect chain that simply does not exist.

But with gender politics, it’s substantially more murky. Games reflect what publishers and developers believe will sell and is acceptable to their audience. And game publishers are notorious in their desire to avoid controversy; think about all the Nazis you’ve killed in video games, and how the Holocaust NEVER comes up.

So this raises the question: If they’re so focused on not offering offense, why do they believe that this kind of thing ISN’T controversial?

“It’s a lot trickier than that, though.” Couldn’t agree more, which is why I am simply stating my opinion, but supportes of Sarkeesian and herself as well seem to think that because x and y are present video games are automatically sexist.
I’m not sure about the Holocaust point though, controversial things in gaming happen all the time (fable gay sex scenes [before im accused of homophobia nothing wrong with that] call of duty terrorist in the russian airport scenes to name just a few).

Axissillian, I think what you are clearly failing to grasp is that what Vladimir is saying is that Sarkessian and her supporters (she is obviously not the first one to do this mind you) is twisting points to suit her argument. This immediately causes her arguments to lose credibility. Of course there are instances in gaming and media where sexism is present but in the majority of the examples she brought up they were valid plot points. She complained about the lack of women in power, then brings up a case where the roles are reversed (Wreck-it-Ralph) and somehow says it doesn’t count? Frankly ludicrous to suggest so. The games which she used as cases have plenty of examples where the protagonists kill other men in mercy killings or are spurred on by the loss of a male comrade.
I could just as easily twist the fact that men are pictured as muscular by saying that it puts a significant amount of pressure on men to look and be as muscular as their protagonists and be as masculine as the characters they play as. Somehow that element goes unnoticed. I could also say, why is it always the wife and daughter who die? Why not the son who is kidnapped or murdered? Is that because a boys life means less than a girls? People should stop nitpicking and focusing on every scenario where a certain group of people seem to have it worse off in a film/game and concentrate on the cases where there is indeed something off. To be honest, at the end of the day it is the writer’s/creator’s creation and how they choose to create it is their prerogative. As long as they’re not racist, homophobic, clearly sexist or discriminatory in any other way, what they do and how they do it is up to them.

“As long as they’re not racist, homophobic, clearly sexist or discriminatory in any other way, what they do and how they do it is up to them.”

Her entire point is that these things ARE clearly sexist and discriminatory.

Also, you seem to keep forgetting that the term “trope” is present in the title of her presentation. A variation or avoidance of a trope does not nullify it. The entire point is to demonstrate that certain very problematic portrayals of women are overused as a narrative device. You cannot seriously argue that “Damsel in Distress” is not one of the most common tropes in gaming.

Additionally, the fundamental problem with the “what about men” argument is that, as I said before, its not a counter-argument. The objectification of men still comes from a masculine perspective. When men are objectified, it is still under the impressions of the male ego. Large muscles, deep voice, etc. These are masculine power fantasies, not sexual fantasies. The men are created as avatars for male urges, and the females are also created as avatars for male urges. The male objectification is still done under a patriarchal setting. A genuine embodiment of feminine sexualization of a male would lead to a very different looking Marcus Fenix.

Sarkeesian brilliantly said it herself in the last video “Women are not the opponents in the game of patriarchy, they are the ball”

“fundamental problem with the “what about men” argument is that, as I said before, its not a counter-argument”. Unlike the argument racists use if you offend everyone then how can it be racist, when you show the different treatment of characters which is almost inevitable in games (notice I said different, but not unequal). When writing characters who are inferior be it through strength or intelligence they are not generalising and saying women on a whole are inferior they aren’t even saying that those characters are inferior. They are just creating a story and to make such a big deal out of it in my mind is fucking pathetic. Yes there are those weird games that over sexualise things, but the majority of the games she mentioned do not even fall close to those tropes. Also marcus phoenix is physically big because he has to be, going through what he has been through builds muscle. Plenty male and female developers choose to portray characters in certain ways because it is beneficial for the story. Just as when the roles are reversed it is purely for plot progression and not just as bad. This masculine perspective bullshit is so far fetched especially if you even see who the developers are, you said Anthony Burch apologised for what he didn’t realise he was doing. Not because he was wrong, but because it offended people who like you have massive sticks up their ass.

I think you may have misunderstood my closing point. That was more of a sidenote. My main point was that most of the examples she used were not examples of sexism.
When have I suggested that the avoidance/variation of a trope nullifies it? I also did not argue that ‘Damsel in Distress’ is not the most common tropes in gaming. You seem to be fabricating points/arguments that I have simply not made.
“Damsel in Distress” archetypes weren’t created by games. This idea originated from the stories of Homer and from thousands if not millions of stories that have come before the creation of video games. To argue that it is not the most common trope in gaming would be laughable which is why it was something I did not do.

Your point that the ‘what about men’ argument isn’t a counter-argument isn’t a valid one. The fact of the matter is, men are still objectified whether it be by the impressions of the male ego or by something else. Using your argument it would equally valid to say that the objectification of women in media (always having to be beautiful, long hair, good bodies, act very feminine etc) is one of the female ego and therefore their own fault? Also I disagree with your point that Marcus Fenix would be different looking. If you were the creator, perhaps he would be because you would have different ideas of how he would look, for other women he would look different as well and for another group he would stay exactly the same. Just because Marcus doesn’t fit your mould of feminine sexualization, doesn’t mean there isn’t any feminine (or even masculine) sexualisation occurring and it is in fact ignorant to sugget so.

I could bring up a plethora of examples where men are ‘the ball’ in women’s eyes. Both statements would be inherently incorrect because both depend on the subjective view of the creator/perpetrator and then how the ‘ball’ reacts to it. One cannot simply make a statement like that and say that it is true for the majority of how life is today.

“Your point that the ‘what about men’ argument isn’t a counter-argument isn’t a valid one. The fact of the matter is, men are still objectified whether it be by the impressions of the male ego or by something else. Using your argument it would equally valid to say that the objectification of women in media (always having to be beautiful, long hair, good bodies, act very feminine etc) is one of the female ego and therefore their own fault? Also I disagree with your point that Marcus Fenix would be different looking. If you were the creator, perhaps he would be because you would have different ideas of how he would look, for other women he would look different as well and for another group he would stay exactly the same. Just because Marcus doesn’t fit your mould of feminine sexualization, doesn’t mean there isn’t any feminine (or even masculine) sexualisation occurring and it is in fact ignorant to sugget so.”

I will put it more simply. When women are objectified in video games, they are being objectified by men. When men are being objectified in video games, they are also being objectified by men.

Are you truly expecting me to qualify my opinion to you by citing sources, experiences and courses I’ve done that deem me worthy of forming my opinion?

My opinions simply appear strong because they are opinions I have formed from my own perception of social constructs and plot devices employed by game creators, writers etc, not from just regurgitating other people’s opinions from books I’ve read and assume that means they have automatically have any sort of credibility.

Nowhere in my comments have I suggested ignorance of critical theory or ignoration of social subtext.

Can I just also mention that nowhere has she suggested how this perceived problem can be fixed? Is she simply saying ‘Don’t do it anymore because I don’t like it’? It is impossible to create something that everyone enjoys and is not offended by. A simple solution would just be to create more stories where the woman is the protagonist and their loved ones die/are kidnapped. This is because as humans we feel tremendous amounts of empathy for our loved ones which is why these scenarios were created in the first place.
I, in contrast to you, Sarkeesian and her supporters, would not have a problem with playing as a female character in multiple games where their male partner/son have been kidnapped or killed because I understand that it is simply a powerful part of the plot that is there to make the player feel more attached/involved in the game. To have issues with such devices that for the majority have no darker ulterior motive is frankly childish and melodramatic.

The reason that you would be comfortable with a switch is because you come from a privileged social perspective. You are contextually catered to by media to such an extent that deviance from that form could be seen as a novelty. If you are from a social position that lacks that level of privilege however, the status quo constantly belittling your agency can be extremely aggravating.

Criticism is not meant to “solve” anything. Criticism is simply that, a critical analysis. It is there to create a perspective into the nature of the narrative constructions that take place. The truly talented artist is able to use criticism to improve his own creations. As I said before, Burch already acknowledged that he was opened up to his shortcomings by this criticism, and will endeavor to improve upon him. Criticism is not about what the artist “should” do. That is for the artist to decide. Criticism is about looking at what the artist has done, and what it means.

P.S. the comment about academic backgrounds was meant for Vlad, not you.

@Axissillian
I agree with you 100% but I disagree on a completely semantic level. Rather than argue against you, I more want to clarify what I think we agree on. These men aren’t so much objects as ideals. I would call the way that men are viewed in games like gears of war as idealization rather than objectification. The Gears of War men, and others like them in other games, are what men want themselves to be. Women in these games are, on the other hand, what men want them to be.

If I can explain a little further, I want to use a counter-example. In this case, I’ll use the horribly written Mass Effect 3 (using the Tali character) and Sarkeesian’s example of Prey. Tali’s character in Mass Effect 3 is an example of a female character with agency. Her missions hinge on her technical expertise and her role as an insider within her own species to drive the plot forward. Without Tali, gamers cannot get the “best” ending to the mission so she is specifically important to the outcome of the game’s plot. Tommy’s girl in Prey, however, is not. If you were to make her blonde, change her into a world class tennis star, or have her be a quadriplegic dwarf it wouldn’t change anything about the progression of the plot. She doesn’t assist Tommy outside of being motivation for him to progress the plot forward. She is just another female body to be thrown in a ditch to keep the story going.

I use Tali’s example as an exception to prove the rule. She critically changes the plot of the game based on her presence, and her unique set of traits cannot be replaced in the narrative. Tommy’s girl could be any other person, and it wouldn’t matter a single bit as long as she still carried the label of “girlfriend.” This reduces her to an object in the game, another rendered character to be shot or looked at on your way to the end. The male characters in Sarkeesian’s video don’t face this same objectification. They are granted the sole power of moving the plot forward and, therefore, do not function as objects to be interacted upon. I agree that with everyone that these portrayals of men as violent and muscle-bound simpletons is insulting and degrading but you cannot equate the simplification and brutalization of women as somehow evidence of equal wrongdoing. Popular culture clearly pushes forth a view of women as objects to be acted upon and men as the ones with the sole power to act upon them. While these male idealizations are troublesome, they still grant men great power within our social-sexual interactions. Rather than argue against the objectification of women and people like Sarkeesian who merely want a fair shake, perhaps you should turn your ire to the guys who make Gears of War since they seem to be the ones most responsible for this disgusting image of men and women.

Okay that wound up being addressed to those I disagree with towards the end rather than you, Axissillian. I just got back from work and was typing quickly so it didn’t get edited as much as it should. Sorry if the structure sucks ya’ll

I think we misunderstand each other to extent. For example, this is a statement I completely agree with

“The male characters in Sarkeesian’s video don’t face this same objectification. They are granted the sole power of moving the plot forward and, therefore, do not function as objects to be interacted upon. I agree that with everyone that these portrayals of men as violent and muscle-bound simpletons is insulting and degrading but you cannot equate the simplification and brutalization of women as somehow evidence of equal wrongdoing.”

When I say that men are objectified, I think I am using it in the same way that you are using “idealized.”

Clearly the “objectification” of men is on a MUCH lower scale of moral and social toxicity than the objectification of women. Its men making themselves into who they want to be as a fantasy and using women to supplement that fantasy. I did not mean to suggest they were AT ALL on equal footing. I was merely trying to demonstrate the the objectification of males is not done by women, but also by men. That the entire narrative construct is entirely masculine.

See, I do not come off as a complete son of a bitch to someone who disagrees with me using actual critical thought.

I can understand how it could be aggravating and being Russian a lot of stereotypes have fallen on our people. Just look at the majority of Bond films and a lot of bad guys in games as well. They all tend to be Russian. Does it bother me that we are very often the bad guy? Not at all, because I understand that it is simply a storyline that a lot of creators choose to use and I’m fine with that. Only the ignorant and ill-educated would take what they see in games and films and translate that into the real world. ‘Oh, women are portrayed as the damsel in distress in all these games? I guess that means all women are weak and require being saved’. ‘All Russians are alcoholic villains? I’ll trust one and will keep my drinks cabinet locked up when they’re over’.

I understand that criticism is simply that, criticism, but I do think we would all be better off if in addition to simply criticising, suggestions were made as well.

Also, I forgot this moment from the video, but when Sarkeesian drew the comparison of domestic abusers saying the women ‘asked’ to be hit, implying this stemmed from video games was ludicrous. They beat women because they’re arseholes, not because games showed them that women want to be beaten/killed to ‘save them from themselves’. I know you didn’t say so either but I thought that was a point worth bringing up.

“Also, I forgot this moment from the video, but when Sarkeesian drew the comparison of domestic abusers saying the women ‘asked’ to be hit, implying this stemmed from video games was ludicrous. They beat women because they’re arseholes, not because games showed them that women want to be beaten/killed to ‘save them from themselves’. I know you didn’t say so either but I thought that was a point worth bringing up.”

This is a common misconception about arguments of “cultural justification” and she could have been a little clearer where it comes from. She is not arguing that video games “make” men hit women. As you said, that would be patently absurd.

Instead, she is showing how there is an over-arching “theme” of violence being used to control women who are out of line. Its not so much a causal factor, as much as it is an artifact of an underlying prejudice. In simpler terms, it doesn’t make people think its ok to hit “uncontrollable” women, but its troublesome when it comes from an overarching idea that it is acceptable to hit “uncontrollable” women.

Also, your comment about stereotyped Russians is very interesting. You probably do not disagree with Sarkeesian as much as you think. I do not think she is calling for a “mandate” to be offended. She is not demanding universal offense from women who engage in the media. She is merely pointing out how the tropes can be dangerous or problematic.

In the case of the Russians, consider it like this. You are not offended. There is not an expectation for you to be offended. However, you do acknowledge that the stereotype is degrading and common. If a Russian were offended by it, would you sympathize from the extent of at least understanding the roots of the offense?

Where on earth in this over-arching theme that it is acceptable to hit unruly women present? Oh you mean the villain, maybe thats why he is presented as the bloody villain. The hero is rescuing the victim of the crime. Stop fixating on the fact that it is a woman. It is a hero rescuing a damsel be they male or female.

I don’t think that’s quite right either. I for one never think it is acceptable to hit ‘uncontrollable’ women nor do I get that impression from these moments in video games. The large majority of people I speak to also don’t (as far as I’m aware) get that impression either. I also don’t think that’s the message game creators are trying to send at all. It is merely her interpretation of it.

I’m not suggesting you think its alright to hit women either. It’s kind of difficult to explain clearly without getting into implicit social messaging. Read some stuff about “Rape Culture” for a good example of what could be called “implicit social messaging.”

Its not so much that the game is telling you to believe this. Its that if someone were already in agreement, the event would act as a sort of psychological enforcement of the belief. It does change people’s minds, just acts as a subliminal justification for those who already do.

“the monolithic implication that ultimately all women are victimized by all men” in concerns to rape culture is just so absurd and sexist in its own right that its becoming increasingly difficult to argue with. “if someone were already in agreement, the event would act as a sort of psychological enforcement of the belief” so just like someone who is already a psychopath getting re-enforcement from first person shooters. Ridiculous!

People who are scum will look for justification for their acts everywhere they can find it and sometimes they don’t even need it. I don’t think it would be right to state that this is a form of subliminal justification. You could just as much argue that the killing of a bad guy is justification for solving problems with violence. The majority of scenarios in these fantastical games are so extreme that I genuinely find it hard to believe a man would see it and think ‘He killed his wife who turned into a demon, so that must mean when my wife shouts at me for something I can hit her’. If that is the case the problem doesn’t lie in the ‘subliminal messages’ of the game, but rather in the upbringing of this so called man. If he hadn’t had seen this scenario play out on in a game his opinion on the matter wouldn’t have changed in the slightest.

“You could just as much argue that the killing of a bad guy is justification for solving problems with violence.”

That’s actually a very common argument within the criticism of the “Culture of Violence”

As I said, this is getting into cultural theory which might be a little too broad to effectively discuss over a message board. I can certainly understand if you are skeptical of the idea of implicit cultural messaging. Its not exactly as universally accepted as other parts of feminist social theory.

I just wanted you to understand that Sarkeesian is not suggesting these images are the explicit cause of domestic violence, but problematic because they are emblems of it.

See, I see it more as a cause and effect relationship. According to Sarkeesian, there is a root cause for domestic abuse. That cause is a pervasive attitude of it being okay to assert yourself on a women because you are a man. The way that men do this is through their typically masculine traits, in this case violence or the threat of violence. This same attitude seems to pervade video games today. This isn’t to say that video games cause domestic violence, but that there is a similar reason that the attitude seems to create violence against women in both instances. Essentially, the attitude is the chicken (which came first) and its eggs are domestic violence and the instances of violence towards women in video games.

Rather than fight the man responsible for the evil in the game, the designers create a situation where the man HAS to kill or beat up the woman in order to resolve the conflicts within the plot. The justification for this is that the woman is too far gone and will not listen to the male protagonist’s reasoning and has turned against him.

Inherent in this plot device is the assumption that there are certain situations where it is okay to hurt a woman, even one you care deeply for. Masculine violence is presented as a solution to feminine mania. Even if the woman is an innocent she is unable to escape this force on her own because she is either too weak minded or doesn’t know how to. The male character is the only one with the ability to be sane and free from evil influences and thus the woman must be beaten to knock the evil out of her. Once again, this presents women as helpless and the male protagonist as the only authority within the story. The man is powerful because he is a man and the woman is controlled because she is a woman. Moreover, the only action that this authority can use to communicate with the female character is violence. I find that pretty troubling.

This is a much subtler sort of misogyny but it is misogyny nonetheless. That it is acceptable in these games to suddenly turn from caring deeply and saving a woman to having to beat her clearly exhibits a link between the two. It shows that the developers believe that violence is an acceptable way to resolve a conflict between a loving man and a woman.

I don’t know whether this psychologically reinforces any opinions or tendencies within people but it’s certainly a distasteful and insensitive trope.

Well clearly this is where the problem lies “Rather than fight the man responsible for the evil in the game, the designers create a situation where the man HAS to kill or beat up the woman in order to resolve the conflicts within the plot.” In literally none of the games is that the case. I am 100% serial, not one of the plots is resolved with the death of the damsel.
Which is why her (Anita) argument is so flawed taking 2 second snippets and saying that is the case will convince many people like it clearly has that these games are sexist or endorse violence towards women, subversively or otherwise.

Without going back into this argument again. Though that device does show women as weak I think it’s not a device used to show women as weak specifically but rather the character. The same situation occurs with a male character being the one that can’t escape by themselves and the protagonist is the only one that can ‘save’ him by killing him/beating him. The reason it appears to be more common with women being the victim stems from the main character more often than not being a male in these adventures. To make the proportion of male/female victims or making females to appear equal in strength and power to men isn’t by preventing these plot devices from existing but by perhaps increasing the amount of female characters if it were necessary. Believe it or not these games aren’t created with the sole purpose of belittling women and machofying men. These plot devices are there to make the feelings the player feels more intense. To think that the only way he can save the world/help his love/end her suffering is to kill her. That is a decision any person would have an extremely difficult time making. That I believe is the sole purpose of this archetype. As others have mentioned in this comments section more men play ‘violent’ video games than women which is why the protagonist tends to be male. Whether it’s right or wrong, creators try and fit the demographic of the players their game is aimed at to increase player/character attachment and the ability to relate to the character.

But what about Gears of War? Dom kills his wife because she isn’t who he thought she would be. She walks up to him and hugs him in her very feminine form but when she is revealed to be very different than how he remembers and wants her to be, he kills her. She didn’t get a say in the matter, in fact, she doesn’t even speak a word beyond mumbling a little bit. We shouldn’t argue about the morality of euthanasia or anything like that, different topic for a (hopefully) never time, but this establishes Dom as the one who knows best and his wife as not what he wanted her to be. How do the writers resolve this conflict between the two? She has to die. She’s an inconvenience to Dom and the story so they just kill her off. Violence towards women and the death of a woman are thus established as okay storytelling tropes.

Shadows of the Damned is even more ridiculous as you have to fight Paula after you defeat Fleming. It’s ridiculous because they even present her like a nagging wife. She berates you for not saving her better and generally acts like a sitcom gag character. After all your efforts to complete the game and save her, it’s clear that you’re supposed to be exasperated at her attitude. She’s portrayed as the worst sort of female archetype, the maniac woman, and the only way to get her to come to her sense is to shoot her a bunch. After all you’ve gone through, she’s presented as not being able to appreciate all the hard work that you’ve put in. That sounds an awful lot like what domestic abusers say about their spouses, that they don’t “appreciate what I do for them” and that because of that “they deserved it.” Moreover, Garcia is shown to be rational and powerful. Once again, he is free to commit violence towards Paula because he knows better and because he’s a man and she’s a woman (with all the traits that women supposedly have).

I’m not saying that the games necessarily endorse violence or that people who make and enjoy them are abusers. What I am saying is that there is definitely an acceptance of the validity of violence towards women for reasons that are rooted in misogynistic attitudes.

@Arutyun
I’m willing to level with you just about anything but not the chicken and the egg debate. Them’s fighting words!

Also I agree about the having to fight your loved ones being something that would illicit a pretty intense emotional response. I’m saying that it’s ridiculous that you have to beat her or kill her to redeem her transgressions against you. The implicit idea here is that these women are better off dead than not being your character’s object of affection. Why can’t there be an option to refuse to face her or try to reason with her more? Or why can’t the game just end with the big bad’s death?

That’s really my argument here, that there’s this go-to cultural belief that men have a right to decide what a woman can and can’t do; a view that is often backed with real or threatened violence. These video games, whether they intend to or not, reflect that the male character, and therefore gamer, should just accept this social norm. The go-to solution to a crazy woman is presented as violence.

“When writing characters who are inferior be it through strength or intelligence they are not generalising and saying women on a whole are inferior they aren’t even saying that those characters are inferior. They are just creating a story and to make such a big deal out of it in my mind is fucking pathetic.”

I’m a bit late getting back here, but this seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The issue isn’t so much what is means when an individual game chooses to portray women in a certain way, it is what it means when a statistically significant number of games choose that type of portrayal. The randomness of “hey, maybe we’re just talking about one specific female character who happens to be helpless” is eliminated precisely because we’re dealing with a collection: a trope. A pattern has been established, and Sarkeesian is attempting to provide an explanation. “It’s just the story that the writer chose to tell” is an explanation of an individual story, not of the pervasiveness of the trope.

“I, in contrast to you, Sarkeesian and her supporters, would not have a problem with playing as a female character in multiple games where their male partner/son have been kidnapped or killed because I understand that it is simply a powerful part of the plot that is there to make the player feel more attached/involved in the game. To have issues with such devices that for the majority have no darker ulterior motive is frankly childish and melodramatic.”

As a follow-up to my previous post: you seem to be taking this personally, which also seems to have you focused on the individual. Again, this isn’t a question of the individual. No one is condemning YOU, or even really individual storytellers. It is an examination of storytelling in gaming. You playing or liking a story in which the protagonist’s wife is brutally murdered doesn’t say anything definitive about YOU, or even about the creator. You are a complex person, the creator is a complex person, you both have multitudes. You could play and enjoy the game for any number of reasons, and the creator could have made it for any number of reasons, and these reasons are discreet and may not be, in the least bit, motivated by sexism. As a whole, however, these games are created and consumed at rates that eliminate randomness: that cannot (or, rather, it is very very unlike to) be explained by the happenstance of individual reasons.

Put simply, the question isn’t whether or not YOU would play and enjoy a game in which the female protagonist’s husband or son was kidnapped, the question is why these games don’t exist (at least, not in any comparable numbers to the male seeking female variety).

I would really like to see Anthony Burch respond to her comments about Borderlands 2. He seems to be reasonably critically aware and has been very supportive of feminism in games in the past. It would be interesting to see how he responds to perhaps subconsciously using tropes he has consciously criticized in the past.

The argument about women being excluded from games is ridiculous. women make up 47% of the market RIGHT NOW! so how can they be excluded? like men, women buy games that they are interested in. I would wager even if Hard Core games like Halo and God of War were marketed towards women, they would still not sell well. Because those type of games are not interesting to MOST female gamers. My sister loves/loved playing the Sims 2 and 3, she probably logged 200hrs playing it. However I couldn’t get her to to play Call of Duty or Halo to save her life.

[Disclaimer: I’m not a gamer, but I am a fan of good storytelling] This is a real question and I’d really like opinions/explanation from anyone who enjoys these games. Put misogyny, racism, xenophobia, et al, away for a minute. If you spend hours and hours with these plot-lines and these characters, how are you able to stand the terrible acting?

It also seems that the game makers should pick up a copy of Joseph Campbell’s The Power of Myth. There’s lots of old tropes that are still interesting if you can write a good story. Also, how much more money would a game company stand to make if they made a game for everyone (since, as we know, ladies are 50% of the population).

I’m not trying to come across as an asshole. I’ve never spent anytime playing these games, but I didn’t imagine them to be more entertaining than the snippets I viewed in the above video.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of gamers just skip or ignore cutscenes, although to be fair the acting has improved, and substantially, even in just a few years. You never would have seen Nolan North’s performance in Spec Ops: The Line; there wasn’t the “bit budget” for it and the writing would never have asked it of him.

Video games are an entirely different entertainment medium than books or movies because the player is actively taking part in the action, not just a casual observer. I think a good analogy would be to say that playing a video game is like being an actor in a play instead of being an audience member watching the play. Because of this dynamic the primary focus in any good game is “immersiveness”, which is something that is far more a function of good programming, detailed graphics and game structure than the plot itself. The plot is of secondary importance and most of the “cutscenes” like you have witnessed here are a very minor part of the overall game that only serve to facilitate a transition between one gameplay sequence and another.

Also, with the exception of maybe 2 or 3 of the games she includes, most of the others are mediocre or even bad games in general. It would be like judging the whole medium of film based on B-movies.

Story tends to be a secondary element of a game. A large section of people who play games ignore the story altogether. For most people, gameplay comes first. And that’s true even design wise. The type of game and mechanics are established or decided first, with the story coming after that.

Can’t rate or comment again? Granted there are a lot of trolls out there, but if you can’t confidentially voice your opinion without being constantly afraid of rebuttals then you’re literally worse than the religious nut job that shows up at the college quad to tell all the sinners that they’re going to hell. At least that guy has the stones to go out in public and face the backlash not from the comfort of his own home. Sure, I know she has suffered during this whole thing with all the threats and emails that she has gotten(of which nothing ever came about other than a talking point during her TED speech) but that should be expected when going after video gamers and the internet. I just googled “Anita Sarkeesian debate” and saw nothing on the first 3 pages with her actually having a discussion with someone challenging her views. If all she does is ignore all negative criticism lumping actual points with the trolls of the internet then why does she deserve any attention? It’s basically asking to show support for a wall, maybe a wall with a lot of interesting stuff written on the side of it, but a wall nonetheless.

Well she actually has made some points in previous videos I’ve seen of hers that kinda shows a lack of intellectual rigor herself. She takes things at their most base level and doesn’t dive into the intentions beneath. She consistently mistakes portrayal for affirmation, even when the exact opposite is what the author intended(and what most audience members without an axe to grind would see). I’ve seen her make points I agree with, but I certainly would count her among the cream of the crop as far as feminist scholars go.

Also she pronounces Joss Whedon as “Josh Way-den,” which is unforgivable.

05.30.13 at 1:07 pm

TheIncredibleBulk

@ Axissillian
How long has this been a discussed topic? She hasn’t been the first person to voice a concern about women being portrayed in video games you’re making some broad strokes and assumptions that there hasn’t been a real counter argument just because you haven’t seen one or don’t recognize. Hell she could even cherry pick a bad argument and respond to it so that it would be in her favor, but she hasn’t even done that. No, this is a person who just wants to stand on a soap box and tell people how she thinks an industry should work.
You’re probably looking in the wrong places for responses too. Try a few gaming websites: Destructoid, Gamasutra, Kotaku or IGN to start. All of them have weighed in at some point since Anita started her Kickstarter last June and not all of it has been negative?
But I digress, she threw ICO into the montage mix as being sexist and that’s a clear sign of ignorance and stupidity on stilts. Nonsense!

Honestly, she’s both really right and really wrong. I find part 2 does a much better job than part 1 in cleaning up her argument at the end. What I find perplexing is that in her thesis, she criticizes many of the female lead protagonists for having male like characteristics. She argues that a lead female protagonist should not be confident or strong, as those are positive male traits. . . . which is freaking ridiculous.

It also bothers me that she never fails to point out that there’s a reason why these tropes have existed for thousands of years. They are entertaining and they sell. Which is why videogames latch onto them, because they make money. Just like movies, videogame companies don’t give a shit what their game is about, as long as it sells.

“She argues that a lead female protagonist should not be confident or strong, as those are positive male traits. . . . which is freaking ridiculous.”

You are incorrectly correlating two of her arguments.

Her first argument comes from Simone de Beauvoir and early 20th century feminists that femininity and masculinity are a constructed binary in which preferable traits are given to the male and less preferable traits are given to the female. Strength, confidence, etc. are traditionally considered “male” values as opposed to “Mercy” or “tenderness” as a female value. This is widely recognized in feminist thought as an arbitrary construction meant to enforce existing gender roles.

That aspect is completely unrelated to her other position that “strong female characters” are often simply masculinized women. They wear male clothing, have short hair, behave with violence and aggression, etc. Their “power” comes from being “masculine” not from having an integral level of control in the narrative or social structures of the setting.

She has never said, as far as I know, “Women should be confident or strong because that is making them manly.”

Axis of evil you are a fucking moron. You’re pedantic point about questioning what someone even knows about these theories just underlines how ignorant you truly are. As does your male glaze bullshit take your brainwashed horseshit somewhere else. Both male and female artists and developers have spent a vast multitude of hours pouring their creative content ibto these characters just for some mope like you to denounce it. People like you don’t deserve to be debated with considering I have had mules less stubborn that your mopey ass. Simply denying someone’s point of view because it doesn’t agree with the 3 books you read in social studies at community college is absurd.

The reason I am acting aggressively is due to the fact that you are constantly denying every valid point that is being made like an obtuse piece of shit whilst not adding anything of worth. what truly is pathetic and aggressive is the fact that some one clearly as privelleged as you is trying to demonise gaming for being sexist especially with such feeble arguments. I’m not saying sexism is not present in gaming or in real life, but in virtually every single example given she is wrong. As you can see those often with stick up ass act as if they have stick up ass questioned

“As you can see, those often comfortable within the realm of privilege will often react aggressively when that privilege is questioned.”

Yup.

Really if I had to boil this down, I would just say this:

Sarkeesian is not arguing that these games are fundamentally evil or that people who have played and enjoyed them are bad people. She’s arguing that they may reflect some aspects of culture that are less than savory, and that we, as gamers, should be aware about how these aspects make people other than ourselves feel.

“As you can see, those often comfortable within the realm of privilege will often react aggressively when that privilege is questioned.”

You mean the way you did upthread when you said this?

“You are fundamentally ignorant of even the basics of criticism. You are attacking a position grounded in the last century of intellectual thought with little more than your own assumptions. You literally and visibly do not understand what terms mean, where they come from, and how they are used. You are arguing against a boogieman constructed entirely of your own profound ignorance. You do not understand enough of the issue to even understand what the argument is about. You are a child listening in as the adults have a conversation. If you want your opinions to have any value beyond the quickly ignored squeaks of the culturally irrelevant you need to make a sincere effort to understand even the most basic parts of the ideas you claim to critique.”

“Fundamentally ignorant”
“Literally and visibly do not understand”
“Profound ignorance”
“A child listening in as the adults have a conversation”
“Quickly ignored squeaks of the culturally irrelevant”

Nothing about that is aggressive or insulting, no. Your overwhelming hypocrisy is showing, and your constant arguments from authority are unimpressive.

thank you, it is as if I am arguing with a crazy person. Sorry that I have stooped to his level “Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience”

@VlaidimirA you may need to work on your stat distribution a bit then because despite your incredible experience as an idiot, you’re not doing a good job of beating anyone except your own flaccid intellect.

My main problem with the video is structural and rhetorical (not counting a fair amount of cherry-picking that can’t really be held against her because she does choose some rather popular games, in the big schemes of things)

The counter arguements of her own thesis (or the clarification of her intent in doing this video, rather) are all compressed and packed up at the end, undermining their relevence and ultimatly making the video counter productive, overall. Which ends up giving a preachy tone to the video rather than an informative one.

As I was watching the first 20 minutes of the videos, all I could think of was how this could be misconstruded and taken out of its context to be used as an argument for “videogames affects people in a negative way”. her “Monkey see, monkey do” analogy gets drowned in a sea of examples and illustations of the thesis. Driving her point home didn’t have to be so cluttered and repetitive.

Now, the backlash around her attempt to open a debate on this subject matter is completely out of line. This ridiculous chauvinism and machisim is alarming in many ways and by itself should highlight the creeping problem in the “Gaming Community” (whatever that means…)

This just sums up the problem with the both of you and everyone else who attacks anyone who disagrees with any of the points made by Anita and the like. Accusing people who disagree as automatically being ‘anti-feminist’. That view is so inherently wrong it borders on the insane.

@Arutyun: First off, the “law” is a bit facetious, just like Godwin’s. No on honestly believes that “feminism” is “justified” based on the comments of internet randoms. Second, I haven’t seen anyone accuse someone of being anti-feminist based solely on disagreeing with or critiquing Sarkeesian, and the post you’re responding to isn’t directed at anyone in particular.

I fully understand the difficulty involved in arguing from the “labeled” side. I was just recently on the “woman hating” side of a “people who hate Skyler White are misogynists” debate, and I cringed a bit every time someone agreed with me who was clearly a bit less…well…sincere about their feelings towards women.

If you want to point to Sarkeesian misusing examples, or if you think there are more reasonable explanations for the trope, I think most of us are mature enough to have that discussion. When it starts to become about categorically dismissing the subject (when one counter-example, or one flawed example, etc. becomes reason enough to stop having the discussion all together), then I think we get into that troubled area.

Since I’m coming in at the tail end of all this, I’ll not consider myself beholden to the same moral and intellectual compunctions as my esteemed colleagues and just put this out here in a way he can understand.

I read all the comments, an experience vaguely akin to trying to decipher Tomas Mann or Proust and I have made the only reasonable conclusion someone in my position one could ever be expected to take.

Vladimir is a dick. And I mean that in the worst way possible. Disconnect your keyboard and go sit alone in a corner somewhere, dog. You’ve made a spectacular asshat out of yourself and you can come back when you realize it and apologize.

Aaron with a cool head and a fresh morning I can only apologies for losing my composure. In all honesty you comment was quite hurtful too. Maybe an explanation can offer some clarity. I recommend watching this video: [www.youtube.com]
And part two if you have the time. The reason it seems that I look like a dick “in the worst way” is because it become increasingly frustrating to argue with someone who does not offer any explanation to why you are wrong or why he is right.

There seems to be the growing misconception that if you argue against someone who supports a honourable movement (in this case feminist) you are disagree with the entire concept. My dislike of her video comes with the one sided nature of her argument and twisting of facts, definitions and intent in order to promote some sort of radical feminism. Hopefully the video will explain the points I was trying to make. Just like I don’t agree with Al Gores inconvenient truth because it manipulates facts to such an extent that it becomes farcical.

My point being that even if you are championing a movement that definitely needs to be promoted, you cannot just manipulate something to fit your statistics and then call foul on everyone that disagrees with you.

” My dislike of her video comes with the one sided nature of her argument and twisting of facts, definitions and intent in order to promote some sort of radical feminism.”

She isn’t twisting facts, definition and intent. Multiple people have pointed this out to you multiple times. The facts are right there on the screen. The definitions are clear. You do not actually know the definitions of the words and ideas she is using and continue to bullheadedly assert you do. You do not understand what she is actually saying. You are disagreeing with a version of Anita Sarkeesian you made up either deliberately or through ignorance.

Also, again, intent doesn’t matter. We all KNOW why the woman was killed, and why it was the author’s intent she die. We know why the author felt that would motivate the player. Anita knows this too. Her entire point is that the entire reliance on this tired trope is based on misogynist thinking and misogynistic stereotypes about male/female relationships. Pointing out “why” the author meant it is irrelevant to the larger discourse.

Also, how the hell is she a “radical” feminist? Absolutely nothing about her is radical. If you think this is radical, or beyond “normal” feminism, you do not actually know what feminism is and feminism believes. You are assuming your limited, ignorant, and incorrect definition is the universally accepted one, and its not.

For the hundredth time, read a fucking book about feminism before you try to argue about it.

Urgh, the worst part about all this negative attention from assholes is that it makes her look competent. While some of her points are valid, she tends to skew them into absurd black and whites, before using those extremes to extrapolate senselessly into a greater sense of society. This is like a fem major’s senior thesis that got funding… and she acts like a college senior as well.

I see no reason you have to apologize. Way back in the beginning of this thread Axissillian questioned your intelligence and called you a child for no other reason than that you disagreed with him. Not only did that user do that but other users(Aaron Smarter) only chimed in only to call you names and add no rebuttall to your arguments at all. I commend you for staying around this thread long enough trying to debate with people who just can’t see the argument from your side.

Axissillian, when did the feminist movement become the end all be all authority on art?

By the way, it is exhausting to read through those useless “let’s quote and deconstruct this guy’s argument and counter it”. Not only is it completely useless (you can make any debate into an endless rhetorical joust that way) but it’s tedious and feel way too obsessive and compulsive at some point.

I think this series was pretty well researched and told. Plus, her near-barf face after some of the video clips is priceless. I have some hang ups (Sonic has 2 out of, like, 19 core games in 20 years where he has to rescue a girl. The first couple of ones didn’t even bother with plot of any kind), but this is essentially stuff we need to hear.

Look, guys, boobs and smut and violence aren’t ever going to go away. I don’t want them to go away, either. But stuff that doesn’t have it can and should exist, and if it takes some feminists calling the industry out, then all is well.

@Charlie: Indirectly, a number of people have supported that result. Not the argument itself, but its result: few to no games that fit that category. They’ve done it by arguing that there isn’t a demo for them, or by suggesting that the few games that already exist are evidence that the trope isn’t prevalent (that is, that those games are “enough” and this discussion/reflection isn’t worth having).

I agree with leave1942. She makes some good points, but the bastard-coated bastards being bastards end up 1) clouding the fact that she tends to be a bit too radical on some accounts and 2) deny everyone else who’s not a bastard with bastard-filling a venue in which to debate some of her points effectively.

Take her Dishonored analysis, for example. Jessamine Kaldwin could have easily been Jessup Kaldwin (as Emily Kaldwin could have been Emmanuel Kaldwin) and the story could have been almost 100% the same — the suggestion that Corvo had some sort of romantic/sexual relationship with the Emperor could have stayed (though I can’t even fathom the level of homophobic rage that would induce, but we’ll leave that discussion for another time), but him being the father of the child would have been… harder, let’s say… to explain.